Until
this year, most of us thought we understood the Democratic Party's nomination
process. Most believed that citizens cast votes in primaries and caucuses, and
these votes are then counted and translated into delegates. Seems simple
enough. As many Americans are now finding out for the first time, however, it's
not that easy.

In
addition to the process described above, the Democratic Party has a group of
people they call "superdelegates" who make up 40 percent of the
delegates needed to win the nomination. These individuals are receiving a lot
of attention these days. Five months into 2008, the New York
Times has used the word "superdelegate" 25 more times
than in all of 1984. Why are these individuals suddenly so important?

Although
the makeup of superdelegates was never intended to be representative of the
general population, a close look portrays an elite group unreflective of the
populace. The 2008 superdelegates are members of the Democratic National Committee,
governors, members of Congress and a variety of former elected officials.
According to our analysis, DNC members make up 54 percent of superdelegates,
governors 4 percent, U.S. senators 6 percent, U.S. representatives 30 percent,
former party leaders 3 percent, and add-ons 4 percent.

In a
political system where states matter, we were surprised to find the
disproportionate influence of certain states and territories.

For
example, the District of Columbia , with a population smaller than all states
but Wyoming
, has 24 superdelegates. This is one superdelegate for every 24,000 D.C.
residents, as compared to a ratio of 1:521,000 in North Carolina .
Puerto Rico has eight superdelegates, more than the number of superdelegates in
seven states. At least at the state level, there doesn't seem to be much rhyme
or reason to the allocation of superdelegates.

Gender
imbalance

Women
also are underrepresented as superdelegates. Nearly two-thirds of
superdelegates are men. This is troubling for a party supposedly concerned with
gender equity. The gender balance is particularly stark among superdelegates
labeled as party leaders -- an astonishing 95 percent of whom are male.
Although superdelegates were never intended to be representative, it is
striking just how unrepresentative they look.The numbers are changing almost
daily, but as of mid-May, 73 percent of superdelegates had committed to a
candidate and 27 percent had not. A higher percentage of women superdelegates
had committed -- 77 percent, compared to 71 percent of men.

Are
elected officials less likely to commit to one candidate or the other? We
discovered that 74 percent of elected officials and 72 percent of non-elected
officials committed to either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Among
these elected officials, 67 percent of U.S. senators, 75 percent of
representatives and 81 percent of governors have committed.

The
larger number of uncommitted Senate superdelegates could be because Obama and
Clinton both serve in the body, or because they view themselves as national
leaders who should remain impartial.

How about
those who have committed one way or another? Not surprisingly, we discovered
that women are more likely to vote for Clinton -- 58 percent of women
superdelegates support Clinton , compared to 44 percent of men. Political
commentators frequently discuss the gender gap in the electorate -- these data
suggest we should also turn our attention to the gender gap among
superdelegates.

More
senators for Obama

Since the
U.S.
Senate is a bastion of the political establishment, we expected a
greater number of senators to support Clinton . Not only has Clinton spent more
time in the Senate, her husband worked with members of this body during his
eight years in the White House. Interestingly, we found more support for Obama
among Democratic senators -- 56 percent of senators favor Obama compared to 44
percent for Clinton .

Many may
wonder if superdelegates vote with their states. It appears the answer is yes.
For every percentage point Obama wins in the popular vote, he gains .84 percent
of the superdelegates in that state. This would be good news for democracy,
were it not for the vastly disproportionate numbers of superdelegates across
the states. For instance, superdelegates from the District of Columbia may follow
the will of local opinion, but because D.C. is overrepresented, our nation's
capital has much more influence than it should.

In the
end, it is important that voters have a deeper understanding of this odd form
of electing leaders. It reveals some disturbing trends about a party that
purports to stand for equality and due process. The Democratic Party can do
better.

Until
this year, most of us thought we understood the Democratic Party's nomination
process. Most believed that citizens cast votes in primaries and caucuses, and
these votes are then counted and translated into delegates. Seems simple
enough. As many Americans are now finding out for the first time, however, it's
not that easy.

In
addition to the process described above, the Democratic Party has a group of
people they call "superdelegates" who make up 40 percent of the
delegates needed to win the nomination. These individuals are receiving a lot
of attention these days. Five months into 2008, the New York
Times has used the word "superdelegate" 25 more times
than in all of 1984. Why are these individuals suddenly so important?

Although
the makeup of superdelegates was never intended to be representative of the
general population, a close look portrays an elite group unreflective of the
populace. The 2008 superdelegates are members of the Democratic National Committee,
governors, members of Congress and a variety of former elected officials.
According to our analysis, DNC members make up 54 percent of superdelegates,
governors 4 percent, U.S. senators 6 percent, U.S. representatives 30 percent,
former party leaders 3 percent, and add-ons 4 percent.

In a
political system where states matter, we were surprised to find the
disproportionate influence of certain states and territories.

For
example, the District of Columbia , with a population smaller than all states
but Wyoming
, has 24 superdelegates. This is one superdelegate for every 24,000 D.C.
residents, as compared to a ratio of 1:521,000 in North Carolina .
Puerto Rico has eight superdelegates, more than the number of superdelegates in
seven states. At least at the state level, there doesn't seem to be much rhyme
or reason to the allocation of superdelegates.

Gender
imbalance

Women
also are underrepresented as superdelegates. Nearly two-thirds of
superdelegates are men. This is troubling for a party supposedly concerned with
gender equity. The gender balance is particularly stark among superdelegates
labeled as party leaders -- an astonishing 95 percent of whom are male.
Although superdelegates were never intended to be representative, it is
striking just how unrepresentative they look.The numbers are changing almost
daily, but as of mid-May, 73 percent of superdelegates had committed to a
candidate and 27 percent had not. A higher percentage of women superdelegates
had committed -- 77 percent, compared to 71 percent of men.

Are
elected officials less likely to commit to one candidate or the other? We
discovered that 74 percent of elected officials and 72 percent of non-elected
officials committed to either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Among
these elected officials, 67 percent of U.S. senators, 75 percent of
representatives and 81 percent of governors have committed.

The
larger number of uncommitted Senate superdelegates could be because Obama and
Clinton both serve in the body, or because they view themselves as national
leaders who should remain impartial.

How about
those who have committed one way or another? Not surprisingly, we discovered
that women are more likely to vote for Clinton -- 58 percent of women
superdelegates support Clinton , compared to 44 percent of men. Political
commentators frequently discuss the gender gap in the electorate -- these data
suggest we should also turn our attention to the gender gap among
superdelegates.

More
senators for Obama

Since the
U.S.
Senate is a bastion of the political establishment, we expected a
greater number of senators to support Clinton . Not only has Clinton spent more
time in the Senate, her husband worked with members of this body during his
eight years in the White House. Interestingly, we found more support for Obama
among Democratic senators -- 56 percent of senators favor Obama compared to 44
percent for Clinton .

Many may
wonder if superdelegates vote with their states. It appears the answer is yes.
For every percentage point Obama wins in the popular vote, he gains .84 percent
of the superdelegates in that state. This would be good news for democracy,
were it not for the vastly disproportionate numbers of superdelegates across
the states. For instance, superdelegates from the District of Columbia may follow
the will of local opinion, but because D.C. is overrepresented, our nation's
capital has much more influence than it should.

In the
end, it is important that voters have a deeper understanding of this odd form
of electing leaders. It reveals some disturbing trends about a party that
purports to stand for equality and due process. The Democratic Party can do
better.

Mad In The Middle

ShouldveVotedforHillary

Pundit & Pundette

PUMA For Life

Let's Get It Right

Website E-mail

Strong Women

Anne Frank

"The best remedy for those who are afraid, lonely or unhappy is to go
outside, somewhere where they can be quiet, alone with the heavens,
nature and the Divine. Because only then does one feel that all is as it
should be and that the Divine wishes to see people happy, amidst the
simple beauty of nature."

Edna St. Vincent Millay

First Fig~
My candle burns at both ends;
It will not last the night;
But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends—
It gives a lovely light!